Punjab-Haryana High Court
Azad Singh vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 28 January, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
223
CWP-22486-2020(O&M)
Date of Order:28.01.2021
AZAD SINGH ..Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present: Ms. Kamlesh Khatri, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana
Mr. Abhinav Sood, Advocate, for
Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)
Hearing of the case was held through video conferencing on
account of restricted functioning of the Courts.
Admittedly, a decree for permanent injunction restraining
respondent no.6 from interfering in the possession of the petitioner herein
has been passed on 12.05.2016.
It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.5 is not
obeying the decree and the official respondents are not helping the petitioner
in the implementation of the decree.
In the considered view of this court, if a decree for permanent
injunction is alleged to have been violated, the petitioner has a remedy under
Order XXI Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which is extracted
as under:-
32. Decree for specific performance for restitution of
conjugal rights, or for an injunction.-
(1) Where the party against whom a decree for the
specific performance of a contract, or for restitution of
1 of 2
CWP-22486-2020(O&M) -2-
conjugal rights, or for an injunction, has been passed,
has had an opportunity of obeying the decree and has
willfully failed to obey it he decree may be enforced the
case of decree for restitution of conjugal rights by the
attachment of his property or, in the case of a decree for
the specific performance of a contract or for an
injunction by his detention in the civil prison, or by the
attachment of his property, or by both.
(2) Where the party against whom a decree for specific
performance or for an injunction has been passed in a
corporation the decree may be enforced by the
attachment of the property of the corporation or with the
leave of the court, by the detention in the civil prison of
the directors or other principal officers thereof, or by
both attachment and detention.
(3) Where any attachment under sub-rule (1) or sub-rule
(2) has remained in force month ,if the judgment debtor
has not obeyed the decree and the decree holder has
applied to have attached property sold, such property
may be sold; and out of the proceeds the court may
award to the decree holder such compensation as it
thinks fit, and shall pay the balance (if any) to the
judgment debtor on his application.
(4) Where the judgment debtor has obeyed the decree and
paid all costs of executing the same which he is bound to
pay, or where, at the end of six months from the date of
the attachment, no application to have the property sold
has been made, or if made has been refused, the
attachment shall cease.
(5) Where a decree for the specific performance of a
contract or for an injunction has not been obeyed, the
court may, in lieu of or in addition to all or any of the
processes aforesaid, direct that the act required to be
done may be done so far as practicable by the decree
holder or some other person appointed by the court, at
the cost of the judgment debtor, and upon the act being
done the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such
manner as the court may direct and may be recovered as
if they were included in the decree."
In view thereof, the petitioner is relegated to the remedy
available before the Executing Court.
Disposed of accordingly.
January 28, 2021 (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
2 of 2
